Doubts and Discussions from the Ramayan - Page 56

Originally posted by: Rajnish_Kumar

very nice reasons chandra👏, so do i believe in valmiki. though i have reason to believe in vyasha as well. actually there is always conflict in scriptures. if we take sriptures written by same man i.e vyasha itself we found so many confict. In such situation our own reasoningand interpretaation is only help though in some cases that also fails to work Confused

Here i wud disagree, his birth has nothing to do about his writting. for Kamban, tulsi, krittiwas the thing is different but when it comes to vyash it become different. Vyahs is much above all of them being incarnation of vishnu itself. remember because of his work ony we know everything even the creation and dissoution even he or none of any humans or even demigod was there at the time of creation. his reason for coming to earth itself is to split vedas into four as its not possible for humans to understant it if it is in single form. his writing though conflict from valmiki but no reason to call it doubtful, but if there is confliction there is doubt too.

Vyasa was an incarnation of Vishnu?😲 Am I reading you right? After Rama, Krishna, then Buddha, then Kalki, no?

I'm not arguing that just because he was born yugas later that he's necessarily wrong, but because his account contradicts a contemporary of Rama, it very likely is. The biggest reason i think he's wrong is #2 above, rather than #3 - #3 was just a logical 'icing' to add to the reasons that he should not be believed over Valmiki.

There are conflicts in scriptures written by different people, but that's why one has to sort out those that are believable from those that aren't - and one good basis for doing that is if something had devine sanction, like Valmiki had from Brahma. Another good basis is a combination of history, logic and science. Even putting aside the latter 2, if we were to go on divine basis alone, Valmiki had the other blessing from Brahma - 1-2-34:35, where he was told that everything about the story, whether revealed or unrevealed uptil that point, would be revealed to him. (Only problem I have with this is that we are using Maharshi Valmiki's own writings as proof of its divinity, using what apparently looks like circular logic: a supporting account by someone other than him, say Vaishishtha - would be immensely helpful). Therefore, in terms of Valmiki vs Vyasa (re: the Ramayan), if one wanted to maintain that Vyasa was credible even in cases where he contradicts Valmiki (which honestly isn't saying much - I can agree with Valmiki from start to finish and re-write the story, and that won't make me a Ramayan author), then setting aside logical interpretations, the question would be - where is thedivine revealation that Vyasa had, and how does it compare with what Brahma told Valmiki? From a religious perspective, it would seem to me that that would be the litmus test on whether Vyasa is as credible as Valmiki on the Ramayan.

I also have a problem whenever scriptures - particularly written by the same people - are in conflict with each other. Scriptures are supposed to be divine and moral/ethical roadmaps. If I gave you a map that showed Mathura somewhere in HP, and someone else gave you one that placed Mathura south east of Delhi, would you allow that both of us are right? There is a difference between paradoxes - which generally litter scriptures - vs. contradictions, that are unresolvable on their own. Like in this case, either Rama knew that he was Vishnu, or he didn't. If the former, Vyasa would be right and Valmiki would be wrong. If the latter, vice versa.

Another observation by me about Rishi Vyasa - given that he assumes that Rama knew about his divinity - a logical analysis suggests to me that since he had witnessed Vishnu's next avatar Shri Krishna up front, he assumed that Rama, being avatar of the same Vishnu, had the same (or similar) attributes, and projects his observations of Shri Krishna on to Shri Rama. But if one recognizes that the tasks that Rama was faced with was vastly different from what Krishna faced, even though ultimately, they both involved lightening the burden on Bhagvati Bhoomi devi, then this is a methodology that cannot be claimed to trump divine revealations itself. The only thing I can imagine that might lend Rishi Vyasa enough weight to be worth considering as equivalent to Valmiki is if Krishna himself revealed to Vyasa the story of Rama (just as Hanuman supposedly did for Tulsidas), but even that would leave unanswered questions about the descrepancies between the 2 kathas.

Originally posted by: bharat9

yeah Chandra bhaiya ji, congo! soon u will hit 1000! and then you can join our Goldie club as well! although hav to mention that Goldies do not get any any extra facilities or v.i.ps! sad!

Rimi

You don't?😲 Thanks for telling me that in advance - otherwise, I was hoping for a vacation in Maui and Lanai, beach side, with pina colada, scuba gear and all the rest - all paid for by i-f😆😆😆

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

Yes, as Lalitha said, it was known that Sita Devi was expecting a child.

As for the vanars, as Vali had said when he accused Ram of being unjust, they being vanars were not bound by the laws that Humans follow.Valialso said that they do as they please and live as they please.

Vibs

That's a good point. There's another that might have been in play.

Unlike Sita, who in no way belonged to Ravan, one might possibly make a claim that Vali 'owned' Ruma commutatively by virtue of 'owning' Sugriv. In other words, when Vali had her, she too was an honorary queen for those who supported Vali possessing her. So, if she was a queen of Kishkinda during Vali's reign, the Vanaras had no grounds to object to her becoming Maharani when her own husband became king. In other words, Ruma remained within the family, and didn't 'betray' it the way Sita was alleged to have done. (Note that I'm not saying that I agree with this reasoning, but that it may have been one considered by the Vanaras)

P.S. Congratulations on including your victorious KK siggie. Also, You are just 2 short of 600 - just hit it! I expect you & Ananyacool to beat me to the Goldie post⭐️

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Vibs

That's a good point. There's another that might have been in play.

Unlike Sita, who in no way belonged to Ravan, one might possibly make a claim that Vali 'owned' Ruma commutatively by virtue of 'owning' Sugriv. In other words, when Vali had her, she too was an honorary queen for those who supported Vali possessing her. So, if she was a queen of Kishkinda during Vali's reign, the Vanaras had no grounds to object to her becoming Maharani when her own husband became king. In other words, Ruma remained within the family, and didn't 'betray' it the way Sita was alleged to have done. (Note that I'm not saying that I agree with this reasoning, but that it may have been one considered by the Vanaras)

P.S. Congratulations on including your victorious KK siggie. Also, You are just 2 short of 600 - just hit it! I expect you & Ananyacool to beat me to the Goldie post⭐️

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Vyasa was an incarnation of Vishnu?😲 Am I reading you right? After Rama, Krishna, then Buddha, then Kalki, no?

Yes vyasha is incarnation of vishnu, in dashavtara vyasha is not mentioned but in 24 avtara as according to Bhagwatam Vyasha is 19th avtara of Vishnu. Every incarnation of Vishnu has a purpose. the purpose of vyasha incarnation is to make division of veda and make extention of its Branches. The vyasha of present manavtar i.e Krishna Dwaipayana is an incarnation of vishnu born from satyavati womb and his father was sage parashar.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

I'm not arguing that just because he was born yugas later that he's necessarily wrong, but because his account contradicts a contemporary of Rama, it very likely is. The biggest reason i think he's wrong is #2 above, rather than #3 - #3 was just a logical 'icing' to add to the reasons that he should not be believed over Valmiki.

There are conflicts in scriptures written by different people, but that's why one has to sort out those that are believable from those that aren't - and one good basis for doing that is if something had devine sanction, like Valmiki had from Brahma. Another good basis is a combination of history, logic and science. Even putting aside the latter 2, if we were to go on divine basis alone, Valmiki had the other blessing from Brahma - 1-2-34:35, where he was told that everything about the story, whether revealed or unrevealed uptil that point, would be revealed to him. (Only problem I have with this is that we are using Maharshi Valmiki's own writings as proof of its divinity, using what apparently looks like circular logic: a supporting account by someone other than him, say Vaishishtha - would be immensely helpful). Therefore, in terms of Valmiki vs Vyasa (re: the Ramayan), if one wanted to maintain that Vyasa was credible even in cases where he contradicts Valmiki (which honestly isn't saying much - I can agree with Valmiki from start to finish and re-write the story, and that won't make me a Ramayan author), then setting aside logical interpretations, the question would be - where is thedivine revealation that Vyasa had, and how does it compare with what Brahma told Valmiki? From a religious perspective, it would seem to me that that would be the litmus test on whether Vyasa is as credible as Valmiki on the Ramayan.

Are you asking the divine revealation of one who wrote 18 mahapuranas , who wrote the biggest epic of the world i.e mahabharata. whome even ganesha failed to cope in pace and understand the meaning of verses immediately. ok to go logical why till now only gaunguly translation of original vyahsa Mahabharat is available in public domain( i am not talking about critical versions). what brahma told Valmiki was indeed make valmiki version the most authentic but Valmiki had some limitaion too as he was only a human but vyasha is incarnation of vishnu itself as Rama so there must be authenticity in his version too. Remember whatever we know about krishna is because of vyasha himself. Valmiki wrote just what he saw, or lord made him to see, but in his version too brahma appeared and said Rama was krishna i.e purnpurshotam. and he himself told krishna is supreme so here we note valmiki wrote just what ram want other to belive in step by step manner. being a human and at the end revealing he is god. in vyasha we found ram knew he is god as told by others take for example aadhyatma ramayana in which shiv speaks the story of ram to uma telling ram as god and knowing events.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

I also have a problem whenever scriptures - particularly written by the same people - are in conflict with each other. Scriptures are supposed to be divine and moral/ethical roadmaps. If I gave you a map that showed Mathura somewhere in HP, and someone else gave you one that placed Mathura south east of Delhi, would you allow that both of us are right? There is a difference between paradoxes - which generally litter scriptures - vs. contradictions, that are unresolvable on their own. Like in this case, either Rama knew that he was Vishnu, or he didn't. If the former, Vyasa would be right and Valmiki would be wrong. If the latter, vice versa.

yes i agree here and as i said in such case our own interpretation works. on what we can judge or think this only works. as we read ramayan authered by valmiki we know what valmiki want us to belive in the way he saw the things, we we read the vyasha version we know what vyasha want us to know as he saw the things. so if both saw differently both wrote and confliction arosed. but the main body of story remained same. at the end all confliction vanished on valmiki version admiting ram to be god but before that it remained. but the doubt would always be there whenever we attempt to compaire so its better to enjoy the way author want us to i.e feeling the frangrace of book😛

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Another observation by me about Rishi Vyasa - given that he assumes that Rama knew about his divinity - a logical analysis suggests to me that since he had witnessed Vishnu's next avatar Shri Krishna up front, he assumed that Rama, being avatar of the same Vishnu, had the same (or similar) attributes, and projects his observations of Shri Krishna on to Shri Rama. But if one recognizes that the tasks that Rama was faced with was vastly different from what Krishna faced, even though ultimately, they both involved lightening the burden on Bhagvati Bhoomi devi, then this is a methodology that cannot be claimed to trump divine revealations itself. The only thing I can imagine that might lend Rishi Vyasa enough weight to be worth considering as equivalent to Valmiki is if Krishna himself revealed to Vyasa the story of Rama (just as Hanuman supposedly did for Tulsidas), but even that would leave unanswered questions about the descrepancies between the 2 kathas.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Ananya

I overlooked this key point by you - this was something I thought as well - that a pativrata vivaha was only complete when the pati too decided to be a part of it. Hence, it was Shiva (Sati), Rama (Sita), Satyavan (Savitri), Indrajit (Sulochana), Atri (Anusuya) and Kapila (Shrimati) who enabled their wives to go on the satitva list.

Another key part of this was that the women in question never worshipped anybody other than their husbands. Hence, women who did worship people other than their husbands (say, Draupadi worshipping Krishna, or UMS joining their husbands in worshipping Rama) didn't get that recognition.

P.S. Rajnish, I thought you were a Patna based Marathi and your last name was Here (pronounced Hey-ray)😉

No, it's not. As you might guess, being a fan of Lakshman & Urmila, I took the name of one of their sons.

Re: Vyasa, I now see why you put equal weight to him as Valmiki, even though I still don't. I happen to believe in Dashavatar, and not in the 24-avatar, which would contradict the Dashavatar. (Reason I don't believe Vyasa as being an avatar is that Vishnu would have had to in the dwapar yuga replicate himself as both Krishna and Vyasa. I also don't comprehend the 'class of people' reasoning you put forth in the last para.

What I was asking in Vyasa's case was divine revealation for just the Ramayan, not the other scriptures, particularly due to its conflicts with Valmiki. I don't doubt the authenticity of what he wrote in the Mahabharata, or the Puranas that he authored (did he author all of them?) But due to the conflicts between Vyasa & Valmiki's account of Rama avatar, I feel compelled to ask this. No disrespect to Vyasa otherwise intended - please don't take it that way.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Rimi

You don't?😲 Thanks for telling me that in advance - otherwise, I was hoping for a vacation in Maui and Lanai, beach side, with pina colada, scuba gear and all the rest - all paid for by i-f😆😆😆